following

following

First I would say, CHO is usually good enough, and has decades of proven record in supporting block buster drug fabrication. Especially in a regulatory environment, it's difficult to "improve" something with that record.

Are you willing to bet your$100 million biologics therapy company, and possibly patients' lives, that there won't be any surprises with your unconventional cell? It's not necessarily rational for a drug developer to accept the unknowns of changing the cell line, in exchange for the mere quantitative (and in my opinion, rather debatable) "advantages" that you list. I would need to see a specific reason that CHO can't work in my particular case. That can happen, but it's rare.

So, it depends on who you are. For a researcher or a reagent manufacturer, it's easier to take "cell line risk", than it is for a drug developer. But most of these will fall in line with whatever the drug developers do, even if they don't necessarily understand why. Big $ numbers define the culture.

Over the decades, change can still seep through, and I although I don't know the numbers, I do think it's happening -- C6 use is increasing. How quickly and where it will go, depends on how compelling your list of "advantages" ends up being on the manufacturing floor. And not the least on how competent the sales reps of its owners are at elbowing cho out of its entrenched market.

Thanks for your response

I've read in some article that CHO cells are unable to produce some types of human glycosylation and they produce glycans that are not expressed in humans, namely a-gal and NGNA that result in immune response in humans and per.c6 has a high yield (about 27g/l) in protein production and is economically cost-effective.

I want to work on CHO but when I read these articles about c6, I was in doubt that if c6 has so many advantages why it is still not used as the dominant cell in protein production? What's its problem? In the articles I read, none of them mentioned the disadvantages.